' RAJA FAYYAZ AHMAD.Petitioner, Muhammad Younas was found guilty on the charge under sections 302(b)/324, P.P.C. By the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court, -`Kohat for causing Qatl-e-Amd of deceased Wajid Khan and also causing fire-arm injuries on the person of the deceased's brother Muhammad Hanif (P.W.5); has been sentenced to life imprisonment with a direction to make payment of compensation amounting to Rs,50,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased, while under section 324, P.P.C. Sentenced, to seven. Years' R.I. And found liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs,20,000 to the injured P.W. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended in favour of the petitioner.
2. The formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A. Was registered with Police Station Jangal Khel, District Kohat on 30-5- 1994 at about 6-45 p.m. Pursuant to Murasila Exh.F.A./1 sent to the police station on the above said date by the A.S.H.O. Containing statement of complainant Muhammad Hanif (P.W.5) under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. It was alleged by P.W. Muhammad Hanif in his statement recorded in the Emergency Room of the Liaquat Memorial Hospital, Kohat that on the above said date, he along with his brother Wajid Khan deceased were on their way back to home from Bazar and when they reached at the place of incident Sahib son of Yaqoob, Younis son of Muhammad Rasool (petitioner) and Jehanzaib alias Tato son of Sahib sitting close to their house made firing on them, as a result of which his brother Wajid Khan succumbed to injuries after a while and he, (the complainant) suffered fire-arm injuries on his person. The incident reportedly was witnessed by Mst. Zainab wife of Mumtaz and Jameel son of Muhammad Hussain. The motive for the crime was disclosed to be blood feud. The nominated accused including the petitioner could not be arrested for a considerable period of time.
3. After completion of necessary investigation incomplete report was submitted for trial of the offence against the nominated accused persons. Initially, Muhammad Younis petitioner was arrested and against him supplementary report after completion of investigation was submitted in the learned trial Court. The petitioner was indicted in view of the accusation as contained in the report and the other pieces of incriminating material collected during the course of investigation of the case, to which he did not plead guilty. The prosecution in order to substantiate the accusation produced 9 P.Ws. On conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the petitioner was examined by the learned trial Court under section 342, Cr.P.C. In the light of the incriminating pieces of evidence, which he denied and controverted. As regards, his alleged absconsion, he stated that he had gone to Karachi for labour much prior to the occurrence and remained there till he returned to his village and claimed his innocence. His co-accused namely, Sahib Din and Jehanzaib were arrested later on and were sent up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Kohat and were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge vide judgment, dated 3-6-1996 by extending benefit of doubt in their favour.
' The petitioner challenged his conviction in the learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar through Criminal Jail Appeal No,39 of 2000, which has been dismissed by the learned Division Bench vide judgment impugned herein.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the State have been heard. With their assistance the impugned judgment has been gone through carefully and minutely in the light of the evidence produced before the learned trial Court. Injured P.W. Muhammad Hanif who had suffered gunshot wounds (brother of deceased Wajid Khan) has deposed inline what he had stated in his statement recorded by the Police Officer in the Emergency Room of the above said Hospital and; at the relevant time his presence at the place of incident with his deceased brother could A not be doubted. The medical evidence lends due corroboration to the testimony of P.W. Muhammad Hanif that he had suffered gunshot wounds nor such material aspect of the case could be discredited or impeached at the trial by the defence in cross-examination, who withstood the test of cross-examination. Mainly, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as no crime-empty was recovered from the place of Wardat nor the motive as set up in the report was proved, therefore, the prosecution evidence in absence of independent corroboration cannot warrant into the conviction of the petitioner on the capital charge; to us appears to be without any substance for the reason that at the time of occurrence, the presence of the injured P.W. Muhammad Hanif with his deceased brother appears to be quite natural and convincing as both of them suffered gunshot wounds, out of whom Wajid Khan succumbed to the injuries, while the injured P.W. After getting first aid and necessary treatment in the above said hospital luckily survived. Discarding the motive part of the prosecution case being not convincing or found not worth credence, would not per se be sufficient to disbelieve the ocular account of the incident given by the injured himself who would by no probability let off the real culprit and instead involve an innocent person. The post-mortem report of the deceased also furnished due corroboration to the testimony of the injured witness besides other pieces of circumstantial evidence, such as; recovery of the blood-stained clothes of the deceased and the injured, site plan, injury-sheet prepared in the hospital by Nazim Khan (P.W.8), whereas; the testimony of P.W. Mst. Zainab was discredited by the learned High Court being a chance witness and aunt of the complainant. It transpires from the prosecution evidence that she reached to the place of occurrence soon after the incident, therefore, her evidence is not worth any significance in the circumstances of the case. As regards the failure on the part of the Investigating Officer to recover the crime-empties; the learned High Court has dealt with the question by observing that the occurrence undoubtedly had taken place just outside the door of the house of accused persons, therefore, the possibility that the empties having been picked up by the accused persons or being the busy place were removed by any of the passersby could not be ruled out. Both the learned Courts i.e, the learned trial Court and the Honourable High Court have concurrently found the petitioner guilty on the chairge in the light of the evidence correctly appraised in its true perspective to which no exception can be taken. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, this jail petition being without any substance is dismissed. .